Parkash Singh And Another v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Maintenance Tribunal And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1280-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.05.2024 Prakash Singh and another ...Appellants Vs.
Sub Divisional Magistrate Sangrurcum-Maintenance Tribunal and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present:
Mr. Shoryaveer Vashist, Advocate for the appellants. *** DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J.
1.
Through this intra-court appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 04.04.2024 vide which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants where the prayer was made for quashing of the orders dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) and 30.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2.
The outlined facts of the present case are that respondent No.3 is father of appellant No.1, who filed an application dated 18.03.2021 under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as "the 2007 Act") for setting aside the transfer deed dated 23.08.2017, which was executed by him in favour of appellant No.1 in respect of land measuring 34 kanals 8 marlas and transfer deed dated 12.10.2017 vide which appellant No.1 had further transferred 32 kanals 7 marlas out of the above land to his wife i.e. appellant No.2. The said transfer
was made in favour of appellant No.1 on the condition that respondent No.3 who is father of appellant No.1 would render all the services to respondent No.3 during his lifetime and would provide meals, clothing etc. with the assurance that he would not misappropriate the land, which was transferred in his favour. Accordingly, on the basis of assurances given by the appellants, aforesaid transfers were made in favour of appellant No.1 without taking any money, but after sometime behaviour of appellants as well as their son was changed towards respondent No.3, who stopped maintaining him. Respondent No.3 pleaded that to misappropriate the property, the same was transferred by appellant No.1 in favour of appellant No.2, who is his wife vide transfer deed dated 12.10.2017. Respondent No.
3 prayed that transfer deed executed in favour of appellants be cancelled as appellants failed to maintain him despite the conditional transfers. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 filed an application before respondent No.1 under Section 23 of the Act, 2007, which was allowed vide order dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) and the same was challenged by the appellants before the respondent No.2, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) and the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 20.09.2021 was affirmed where the application filed by the respondent No.3 was allowed on the ground that appellants did not honour the commitment regarding maintaining respondent No.3 and had given beatings, ultimately who was thrown out of his own house. Such conduct resulted in passing of favourable order qua respondent No.3.
Aggrieved against the said orders, the appellants filed the writ petition, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 04.04.2024.
3.
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single
Judge did not appreciate the fact that the appellants were always ready and willing to take care of respondent No.3 and instance of non-maintaining respondent No.3 is not proved on record rather respondent No.3 is being influenced by his other sons i.e. brothers of appellant No.1 for cancellation of transfer deed as both retired from government departments and they are not happy with the transfer of properties made in their favour. 4.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the material available on record.
5.
The perusal of impugned judgment would show that learned Single Judge after appreciating the material as well as orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 concluded that the property in dispute is owned by respondent No.3. The transfer deed was executed in favour of appellant No.1 on the condition that appellants would maintain respondent No.3 during his lifetime by providing meals, clothing, medicine etc. and would not misappropriate the land gifted by respondent No.3 to them. After noticing the conduct of appellants towards respondent No.3 where appellants failed to maintain and relying upon the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 where the said fact was duly established, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by appellants in the light of Section 23 of the 2007 Act. The findings given by learned Single Judge are reproduced here below:-
! " #
$! % &'( # ) $! % &'*( +)
# "
)
) #
#
,
-+
.
) #
+
+
) + ) /
/ )
)
/ #
0 +/
+ #
) *
+ #
+ 1 ) + + )) /
) + ) )
#!
,
/
$ #
1( #
+ # + # # 2
) / #
3
+ " ) #
) ) # !
$! % &' ($ .
#
1(
+ # ) #
+ # #2+ 0
$ ./ )1 ) +
* #
1
# &1 4 1
$ ( "# ("
) 1 )
) *1 .) +
) )
+
)
# *
" /
# 1
) )
1
#
+
3 +/
)/
! ,
# 5
We have perused the impugned judgment and are in agreement with the observations made by learned Single Judge and have found no illegality in the same.
7.
In the light of above, no interference is called for. Consequently, the present intra-Court appeal is dismissed.
8.
Since the main case is dismissed, pending application(s), if any, have also rendered infructuous.
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA) (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE JUDGE 22.05.2024 vanita Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes No Whether Reportable :
Yes No